It was a flattering offer for the retired railway official and author of two small forgotten books when management guru and million-copies-selling author Shiv Khera invited him to work together last month. Just what he meant by "working together" struck 70-year-old Amrit Lal only when he was out of Khera's posh condominium in Singapore. Flicking through the book Khera had given him as a parting gift, Freedom is Not Free, Lal discovered sentence after sentence lifted from his own book, India—Enough is Enough, published nine years ago.

"I'd used a verse by Iqbal in my book which Khushwant Singh translated in English specially for me. Khera passes it off as his own." Amrit Lal

"It was like seeing a priest coming out of a whorehouse," is how Lal decribes his sense of outrage at the "lift and shift robbery" by a man whose self-improvement bestsellers like You Can Win and Living With Honour have been translated into four Asian and nine Indian languages.

All night, Lal scoured through the 223-page book Khera had gifted him with a personal inscription "To Mr Amrit Lal—Let's together make the country proud." He discovered, to his rage, at least 34 instances where sentences and even paragraphs from his own book—a 177-page crusade against corruption—had been lifted almost verbatim. "Even an acronym I had coined, RNI, he has stolen as a subtitle. I had used a verse by Iqbal in my book which Khushwant Singh translated specially for me into English. Khera passes it off as his own. Nor is it a coincidence that the only other poem I used in my book—Joshua Holland's God, Give Us Men—appears in his book as well, again without acknowledging the poet."

Lal confronted Khera with the evidence he had dug up. In a letter he e-mailed the next day, Lal wrote: "I went through your book Freedom Is Not Free at one go and find surfeit of scissor-and-paste work from my book India: Enough is Enough."

"There is no copyright on either titles or sentences unless you patent them. Borrowing to create a new work is not an infringement of copyright." Shiv Khera

(He gives 34 instances)."

Khera's response to this missive was silence. Lal then dashed off an e-mail to Khera's publisher, Rajiv Beri of Macmillans. That too did not draw a response. A week later, Lal followed it up with another letter to Beri claiming that even the title of Khera's book had been lifted from that written by Ralph M. Hockley (Pub. Brockton, Copyright: Jan 31, 2001—ISBN 188791840xx). Clearly he meant business. Beri's reply came almost instantaneously: "Dear Mr Lal, On receipt of your earlier email I had contacted my Delhi editorial to look into this as it came as a complete surprise. I am also forwarding your mail to Mr Khera who as the author is best equipped to respond to you."

With the publisher washing his hands of the affair, (when contacted, no one from Macmillan was prepared to comment), Khera had no option but to talk to his tormentor. Says Lal: "He called me on June 18, saying how much he respected me and that I was like his elder brother. All he'd say about my letter was: what do you advise me to do? He offered to acknowledge the facts and give credit for taking the lines from my book. But I kept telling him I wanted a line-by-line reply to my letter." Khera agreed to reply to Lal's allegations within six days. It took 12 days, and it was what Lal calls "a lawyered document." In the letter, CCed to his publisher, Khera categorically denies Lal's allegation of plagiarism, saying, "as a matter of habit, I make notes of ideas and concepts that come to mind, which can be developed further.... Many examples, and anecdotes are the result of a collection from various sources over the last 25 years. Unfortunately, the sources were not always noted or available; hence it became impractical to provide an accurate acknowledgement."

But there was a small conciliatory gesture to Lal: "Having said so, I appreciate your having brought to our attention some sentences from your book for which giving a credit escaped our attention. It may have been totally an oversight and without prejudice. Since you have brought the same to our attention, I shall acknowledge and give credit to you in our next edition." Khera concluded with the hope that "with this, the matter should come to rest. I look forward to a great relationship in the future." It was a hope destined to die. Lal's response was to both go public and approach a lawyer in Delhi. "Khera has filed a caveat in court so I sought legal help," he explains.

When Outlook contacted Khera in Delhi, he explained how these "lapses" occur: "It is not possible to acknowledge all the sources in my book, there are far too many." Khera summoned one of his team of "researchers," who explained: "My job is to input into the computer the newspaper cuttings that Sir gives us. Sometimes there is an oversight and we forget to put the date and name of newspaper." But 34 instances from the same book? "There is no copyright on either titles or individual sentences, unless you patent them as your trademark," Khera asserts. "Borrowing from many sources and creating a new work is absolutely not an infringement of copyright."

But how do you create a new work, counters Lal, when most of the book is borrowed material. "Even in his bestselling You Can Win, it's 73 per cent anectodes and jokes (82 anecdotes, almost all of them unacknowledged, in 290 pages). The rest is quotes (90) and one-liners and poems (13) of which five are not acknowledged."

What shocked Lal was Khera's negligence about readapting the material he had pinched. References to Americanisms like prairie chicken, Hudson River, Calgary Towers, Harvard University studies pop up at regular intervals, and at one place, as Lal points out, Khera even refers to America as "our nation."

"What would you do in my place?" Lal had asked—rhetorically, of course—in his first letter to Khera, "rue, sue, go to the press, advise your publishers?" In the end, the crusader whose old book is suddenly promising to bring unexpected gains, decided to take all those options and one more: an out-of-court settlement for a sum which he says he will donate to the Missionaries of Charity. If Khera is to be believed, Lal wants nothing less than

Rs 25 lakh as compensation. It's a sum handsome enough to send other writers scurrying to pick up Khera's books in the hope of finding more such lapses.

If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles

I Inspire You To Inspire MeIt was indeed shocking to learn that Shiv Khera, a person who has (allegedly) been inspiring so many, actually has feet of clay and has been blatantly plagiarising without so much as a thank you (You Can Steal and Win, July 26). No wonder then that this self-proclaimed motivational speaker could motivate no one to vote for him in the past elections. Surabhi Agarwal, New Delhi

When I met Shiv Khera during an autograph session in Bhopal for his book You Can Win, little did I know that behind the pleasant facade was a plagiarist. And who knows how many such Amrit Lals exist.Prateek Badwelkar, Bhopal

Great that Outlook took on Shiv Khera despite his celebrity status. Hope this stirs up enough public opinion against people who openly copy from other less well-known but talented writers. A sum of Rs 25 lakh is a measly sum compared to the millions Kheras must have earned. Is donating to charity the only punishment one gets in our country for openly and defiantly copying another writer’s work?Vandana M., Delhi

People like Khera are a disgrace to India. They should be exposed and no out-of-court settlements should be reached with them.M.S. Sodhi, Singapore

This incident proves the adage that one must count the cutlery after guests like Khera leave.Col S.K. Jain, on e-mail

Your article on Shiv Khera didn’t come as a surprise. He has been doing this for a long time. Surprising was his comment "...cannot have a copyright...unless you patent them as your trademark..." The gentleman needs an immediate crash course in intellectual property rights before blurting out such inanities. Copyright, Patent and Trademark are all independent statutory protections. Prashant Mishra, Bhopal

Winners, according to Khera, need not innovate, they can just pinch ideas from what distinguished people before them have said and done, cut-paste it, then flip it horizontally and pass it off as individual inspiration. Tanu K. Kapoor, New Delhi

I had the chance to listen to Khera in Bhopal once. We got in after much jostling and pushing to hear the wise man. I came back feeling cheated. He pranced on the stage all evening, repeating one-liners he had memorised to mesmerise people. He turned out to be nothing more than a conman.Manju Dhall, on e-mail

You find Kheras in every walk of life. Marketing oneself has become all too common. Personal brand-building is the done thing and there are even specialist consultants. The bigger the splash, more suspicious you ought to be about a person. Neelima Thomas, on e-mail

Dear SirIt is heartening that Outlook has picked up this case inspite of Mr.Shiv Khera's celebrity status. I hope you will be able to generate public opinion against people who openly copy from other lesser known but talented writers.Rs.25 lakhs is a measley sum for Mr.Khera whose books sell millions of copies all over the world.Is donating to charity the only punishment that one gets in our country for openly & defiantly copying another writers work?

People like Khera are a shame to India. They are the wolves in a sheep's clothing. They know how to mint money by fooling people. They should be no out-of-court settlement - the press should also expose such people. Charity can still be done after Mr. Amril Lal wins the case.

Khera is a cheap type person who steals original literary works of other, lesser-known authors and presents them his own. He is best suited to be a politician in India (which he desperately tried to become by contesting elections in Delhi). Such people should be caught and thrashed.

We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism

But:

1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.

2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads

3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site

4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.

5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT

6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.

7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.

8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.

9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:

a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you